Linnaean taxonomy classifies apes and monkeys as two closely related groups. This is the classification system most people are taught in grade school.

Cladistics is a style of classification that seeks to organize species and groups of species from when they branched off of other groups of species. In this style, everything is defined by novel features, but they are still members of the more ancient clade. Birds for instance, would be a novel clade emerging from Dinosaurs, and thus all birds are also dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.

Because there are two groups of monkeys with unique characteristics (new world and old world), and apes have unique adaptations not found in either group, we have no way of cladistically defining a monkey in a way that meaningfully does not also include apes.

As a side note, this is where the phrase “there is no such thing as a fish” comes from. ‘Fish’ in the Linnaean sense are a huge and diverse category. Two random members of the fish class would likely be far, far more distantly related than a random mammal and a random reptile.

Probably until either the nurses stop panicking in my local area or the immunocompromised people in my life die of a preventable illness.

The article only mentions the time once other than the headline and makes no mention if this is typical.

The article does mention that typically people meeting their probation officer are not allowed to have a lawyer present, but Trump was allowed to include his.

It looks like the article is mainly talking about weather this is special treatment or not.

What’s really weird is that the sun seems to be setting in the same place that the sun and moon are rising. Clearly their entire room is rotating as they sleep. (Along with their little miniature city skyline on their windowsill.)

*Artificial Hormones have been banned.

The natural hormones in milk still exist. The post looks mainly to be a response to the pearl-clutching that soy-milk contains a similar low-level of (plant specific) hormones.

Of course, “always cheaper” in this case means less money up front, but much, much expensive more down the road than the initial cost.

Of course, the down the road cost isn’t usually that visibly connected to the “make it illegal” plan, so conservative governments love it.

It might be similar to a Motte and Bailey Fallacy. Though that one is more focused on distinct but related definitions than it is for distinct but related situations. Not the exact one that you are looking for, but the related concepts might be a path towards an answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

“But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.”

Sounds like they have passwords and banking apps to hide, You should demand their bank account and credit card details to verify that they have made no illicit actions.

If they point out that they have no reason to trust you with that information, that’s when you point out that police, government, or corporate groups are made out of people just like yourself. They might have some codes of conduct, or a vetting process, but it just takes one person malicious or careless enough for you to be severely impacted.